Hays v. May

Ohio Supreme Court

Hays v. May

1 Wright 80, 1 Ohio Ch. 80

DecidedAugust 15, 1832

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 80 (Hays v. May) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hays v. May, 1 Wright 80, 1 Ohio Ch. 80 (Ohio 1832).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIGHT, J.

to the jury. The point made by the defendant’s counsel is not tenable. The endorsement of the note transfers the legal ownership to the endorsee, and is not in any way affected by the agreement set up in evidence. That is an independent agreement; for a good consideration, and affects not the legal transfer. But the endorsement on a note, as between the parties, has no such sanctity as counsel suppose. Between strangers, if the endorsement was made before the note fell due, it would transfer the interest, so that the endorser would not be at liberty to show any of [81]*81the circumstances attending the transfer to affect the right of the holder. But, as between the endorser and endorsee, the real transaction may always be shown. If the contract, therefore, is *proven to your satisfaction, and the plaintiff has done what he [81 was bound to do by it, he is entitled to a verdict for the note and interest.

Verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WRIGHT, J.

to the jury. The point made by the defendant’s counsel is not tenable. The endorsement of the note transfers the legal ownership to the endorsee, and is not in any way affected by the agreement set up in evidence. That is an independent agreement; for a good consideration, and affects not the legal transfer. But the endorsement on a note, as between the parties, has no such sanctity as counsel suppose. Between strangers, if the endorsement was made before the note fell due, it would transfer the interest, so that the endorser would not be at liberty to show any of [81]*81the circumstances attending the transfer to affect the right of the holder. But, as between the endorser and endorsee, the real transaction may always be shown. If the contract, therefore, is *proven to your satisfaction, and the plaintiff has done what he [81 was bound to do by it, he is entitled to a verdict for the note and interest.

Verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 80, 1 Ohio Ch. 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hays-v-may-ohio-1832.